Shyam Kumar son of Prayag Sao residents of Kedu, P.O. Mongar Police Station Latehar v. (1) The State of Jharkhand (2) Ramid Khan, (Choukidar 03/47) son of Havaldar Khan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2017 Shyam Kumar son of Prayag Sao residents of Kedu, P.O. Mongar Police Station Latehar, District-Latehar …… Petitioner Versus (1) The State of Jharkhand (2) Ramid Khan, (Choukidar 03/47) son of Havaldar Khan Resident of village-Humbu P.O. and P.S.-Herhanj, District-Latehar ….. ……Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocate Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. ---------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 13.05.2024 Pronounced On: 24 .06.2024 1. The instant revision application is directed against the Judgment and order dated 16.12.2016, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr.Appeal No. 22 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The aforesaid appeal was filed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. No. 92 of 2014/T.R. No. 25 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 427 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code separately for each offence and has been further sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision petition is that on 08.02.2014 at about 10:30 a.m. present petitioner drove the Shri Ram Bus bearing registration no. JH01AB 6177 rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased coming from opposite side. The injured motorcyclist was being taken to Balumath Police Station for treatment but on the way he succumbed to his injuries sustained. FIR was lodged by Choukidar No. 3/47 Samid Khan bearing Hearhang P.S. Case No. 4/14, G.R. No. 92 of 2014 registered for the offence under Section 279, 304(A) & 427 I.P.C. against unknown driver of aforesaid bus. After completion of investigation, sufficient evidences was found against the present petitioner and charge sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner surrendered before the concerned trial court on 11.02.2014 and was released on bail on the same date. 3. The substance of acquisition were explained to the petitioner which he denied and claimed for trial. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution and documentary evidences were also adduced including the inquest and post mortem report. 4. The plea of accused was denial from occurrence and innocence. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the defence for his 2 Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2017 innocence. The learned trial court after conclusion of trial held the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 279, 427 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months RI for the offences under Section 279 and 427 IPC separately for each offence and RI of two years for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal challenging his conviction of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge Latehar bearing Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2016 which was heard and decided on 16.12.2016 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court was upheld and confirmed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed which has been assailed in this Revision petition. 6. Assailing the impugned Judgment and order of sentence and its confirmation in an appeal it has been contended that prosecution has failed to prove negligent driving of the bus by the present petitioner which is as such the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and is lacking in this case. The petitioner was not identified as a driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is also excessive and disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner, hence, the impugned Judgment and order is not fit to be sustained and is liable to be set aside by allowing this Revision petition. 3 Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2017 7. On the other hand, learned APP for State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that P,W. 1, Samir Khan, P.W. 2 Istiya Khan, P.W. 3 Barik Khan are eye witnesses of the alleged accident and have consistently deposed that on 08.02.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. the present petitioner drove the offending bus very rashly and negligently and dashed it to the motorcycle of one Md. Soyeb Khan who sustained severe fatal injuries and died in the course of going to the hospital. The post mortem report of the deceased and injury sustained by him has also been proved by conducting doctor P.W. 6 doctor Laxman Prasad as exhibit 3. The petitioner has voluntarily surrendered before the concerned trial court admitting himself to be driver of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident and was granted bail. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea taken by the opposite party that he was rash and negligent while driving the bus and his identity as a culprit has not been proved by prosecution. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner considering the gravity of offence and death of a young boy who was hope of the family in accidental death caused by present petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving is also adequate and proportionate. The safety of the people while using road traffic is of paramount consideration, hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order passed by learned trial court and 4 Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2017 confirmed by the appellate court and this Revision petition has no merits and is fit to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the records of the case and has perused the Judgment and Order passed by learned trial court as well as appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner and it appears that the concurrent findings of fact recording the conviction and sentence of the petitioner does not suffer from perversity, rather is based on proper appreciation of testimony of the eye witnesses and other materials brought on record. There is also no dispute about the identity of the petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle which has been admitted by him in his bail application itself and has never raised such defence either at the time of trial or at the appellate stage. The sentence passed against the petitioner also appears to be adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this revision petition calling for any interference in the impugned Judgment and Orders and there is no merits in this revision petition which stands dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this Order along with record of trial court be sent to the court below for information and follow up action. Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 24 / 06 /2024 Rajnish/- N.A.F.R. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 5 Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2017